Isn’t Singapore is like a high-class hotel ? Very superficially look good in image and service. Staff having superficial smile just for the sake of ricebowl and everything manage to as business. But leave everyone must eventually as who can afford to stay for a long time in expensive hotel with accomodation price heavily mark-up.

Give us the detailed breakdown of the cost of one HDB project and how HDB comes up with the selling price for the units.

Give us detailed employment and other demographic statistics in three individual groups: citizen, PR, foreigners.

Give us detailed account of how the fee collected from road tax, COE, tv license, maid levy are being used.

What are the things that the PAP are not listening or ignoring?
Just name me 3 things.
Perhaps others may not agree with you.

Whenever, PAP has to resort to “let’s us move on”.
The question is whether there are more people agree with me or disagree with me. The way to settle it is with public debates on issues.

So what is your point ? Head you win, tail I lose ? What you are saying is that what is so not so desirable that is going to happen is not only specific to Singapore.

Agreed but in this context, there is a difference between leaving for good carrying along with negative feeling about the country left and leaving temporarily or long term but always with good memories about the country to talk about and positive feeling towards the country. And also the “quality” of those that are leaving the country for good and their reason.

There will always be global mobility, e.g workwise, etc. Ultimately, it is the heart of the person that counts. Is the heart in Singapore when he is outside Singapore or put in another way do the people who are physically present here have their heart here.

“If all the mobile people, both citizens and not, pull out, what is left is just going to be an empty shell. Scary.”

This is precisely what nation building is all about.

Surely, there is lack of political freedom. But are the people leaving for this reason? Does breaking the cage around democracy keep people here? I somehow don’t think that is enough.

The most mobile echelon of the population is always going to seek opportunities awaiting them else where simply because there is always a patch of grass elsewhere which is greener in the eye of the beholder. Just like our forefathers, both well to do and not, who came here for various reasons.

So what I believe is important is to come up with a system that can sustain the resources to give the people who CAN’T leave the country a respectful life. After all, these are the people who are likely to suffer the most.

This task is, of course, an universal problem, not only specific to Singapore. What is particularly challenging here is that we do not have anything to mine or farm to generate revenue for all the expenses the people need. If all the mobile people, both citizens and not, pull out, what is left is just going to be an empty shell. Scary.

The will to let go so that really able people can really shine. Let the people decide who should lead. No artificial barriers in the name of this and that (and tonnes of reasonings which are effectively excuses). Singaporeans may have been subservient in the past given certain past conditions.

Certainly, the level of understanding & maturity acquired in the past years on national matters have resulted in them becoming more discerning and confident in airing their opinion on how the country must move or be directed. This itself is healthy and good but artificial barriers must be dismantled for it to bear fruits.

Alternatively, this will be translated into useless cynicism and in long run apathy. Variety is the spice of life while single minded dominance just for the sake of it may result in national stagnation at the expense of the greater good of our wider citizenry.

My advice to all contemplating to leave Singapore – ” please do not go unless you have no choice; claim your birth rights and do not give it away easily to others.
FTs are only a temporarily fad – they will go to places where they can find easier lives – remember the popular phase ” fail in London, try Hong Kong “, nowadays it may be “no job in America, try Asia”………………………
Hang on there fellow Singaporeans; we can have a good thing going here.

if you can say exactly what you mean – easier for me to understand. I wish to understand what are the things you are not easy with. It is after all only an opinion be it agreed upon or not.

I am not happy with the way ERP points are erected – nothing I can do about it. There are a number of things I can do – take public transport, ride bicycle, not voting for the PAP comes election, migrate, grumble about it, etc …

someone not happy with the speed camera along Napier Road – smashed up the camera. I think it was smashed / vandalised – more than once. But then motorists slowed down along the stretch of road which was the purpose of the camera.

can’t go around smashing up all the ERP though. can’t cheat or avoid not paying. so live with it. Each time the cash goes out – I will just swear and curse like most people. A friend told me that he has several set of false number plates (all with non existence numbers, don’t want others to get into trouble) and he saved quite a bit on ERP, cannot used too often though….i told him it is just not worth it….

cheers

What are the things that the PAP are not listening or ignoring?
Just name me 3 things.
Perhaps others may not agree with you.

Redrawing boundries – no arguement there.

the more than half of the people who voted for the PAP trusted the PAP’s judgement and will adopt their policy. If not – next election they will loose their votes. The PAP can only represent so many people and do so much for so many people – not all. If you are not in there – too bad. Wait for your opposition MP to get voted in then he will represent you.

It is because people feel they are not able to get straight answers / key information from the government.

It is because people feel that PAP is not listening and just ignoring public views. If PAP wants to talk / debate policy core values, why restrict it to Parliament and with opposition? Come out to debate the core values in public with the people.

It is because all PAP can do is redraw election boundaries and play all sort of tricks to keep themselves from being voted out.

It is because PAP only know repeating its policy position and tell people to move on when people feel the PAP is not representing the people.

Well just for a start. Even with all the surface achievements, the sense of ownership in this country is clearly not present for some (or a lot of) people given you-know-I-mean.

To a great degree, a lot of us do sense that something is not so right in the national scene. Call it intuition or anything if you like. It may be fine for you but certainly it is uneasy for me. No point to be more specific.

Funny right. So many “good things” that you have mentioned and the list can go on and on and yet many still make noise leh. Just don’t understand why.
Is there something missing that you have forgotten to mention ?

There will always be people who are not satisfied no matter what happens. No one can satisfy everybody or make everybody happy, not within a household, not within a community, not within a country and certainly not with the world….

I may have missed couple of important things – what is the something that you think I missed out?

cheers

To what extent has our liberal foreign labour and citizenship policies affected Singaporeans’ rights with reference to Article 22 and 25 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights ?

Is the Singaporean population shrinking because of our liberal foreign labour and residency policies?

The answer is probably nobody knows, or maybe just a few may know. Well, perhaps we can try to make a calculated guess…

I refer to media reports about the OCBC survey released on 12 December that 1 out of 50 Singaporeans (2 % of the population) aspire to migrate, and the article “Facts on the ground more eloquent than statistics: Ngiam” (Today, Dec 10).

In the debate on the ministerial pay increase in April, the Minister Mentor argued that without a competent Government, our mothers and daughters will be maids in other countries.

But, if the Singaporean population is indeed shrinking due primarily to emigration, and 2 % of the population aspire to migrate, do our ministers really deserve the 2nd of their 3rd pay increase by 21 % from 1.6 to 1.94 million, come 1 January 2008?

Since the increase for civil servants range from 4 to 21%, why is it that ministers who are already paid the most are also getting the highest pay increase in both percentage and quantum terms?

The latter article reported that:

“Describing the Republic’s productivity performance as “mediocre”, Mr Ngiam pointed out how Singapore’s Gross Domestic Product has expanded “largely on infusions of foreign labour”… Mr Ngiam repeated his concern – which he first made in a People’s Action Party newsletter last month – that Singapore should not be obsessed with bumping up the population for economic purposes, given the advances in technology and education standards.

Said Mr Ngiam: ‘The civil servie is more adept at achieving quantitative than qualitive targets. Topping up our population en masse with immigrants may well create a population base larger than what out economy can sustain’”.

According to the book “Population of Singapore” by Saw Swee-Hock, the ‘Non-Resident Population’ (foreigners) grew by -2.4, -5.7, 0.7, 5.9 and 9.7 per cent, in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively. This means that the rate of growth for foreigners has increased about 15-fold since 2003.

In contrast, the ‘Resident Population’ (Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs)) grew by only 1.8, 1.7, 1.4, 1.9 and 1.5 per cent, for the same respective years, respectively.

The ‘Net Migration’ for 2005 – 06 (mid-year to mid-year) was 130,500, with the ‘Component of Total Population Growth’ being 132,500 for ‘Population Growth’ and 21,671 for ‘Natural Increase’.

If the population grew by 132,500, natural increase was 21,671, with 130,500 ‘net migration the addition of mainly foreign adults to the total population’, does it mean that about 19,671 (21,671 natural increase + 130,500 foreigners – Population increase 132,500) Singaporeans emigrated from Singapore ?

Since a record 13,200 citizenships were granted last year, and a record 57,000 were granted PR status, giving a total of 70,200, the fact that the overall resident population increase was only 55,000, may also support this estimate for emigration (70,200 new citizens/PRs + 22,358 new babies less deaths – 55,000 overall resident population increase – 19,671 estimated Singaporean emigration = 17,887 estimated PRs who left Singapore?).

Of course, there may need to be a small adjustment to the figures, because some of the new babies and deaths may be PRs.

Depending on the adjustments to the data, because the statistics are not broken down into Singaporeans and PRs, if this approximate figure is correct, then, it may indicate that the number of Singaporeans migrating may be more than the number of new babies and deaths. Will the Singaporean population shrink, if this apparent trend continues?

This matter may also tally with Senior Minister, Goh Chok Tong’s recent call for us to address three main challenges, one of which is the need to integrate the 70,000 plus new citizens and PRs, and make them feel at home in Singapore.

Why is it that as I understand it, emigration statistics of Singaporeans are not published on a regular basis ?

Why do ordinary citizens like me have to guess the numbers? Shouldn’t they be available and published regularly?

How many MPs have ever asked this question in Parliament?

As I am just an ordinary citizen, and not a statistician, economist, analyst or academic, can the experts please help to advise as to whether my estimate is correct, close or far off the mark?

With regards to the ‘Resident Population’, the population increase was 55,000, ‘Natural Increase’ was 22,358, and ‘Migration Increase’ was 32,642, in 2006.

So, does it mean that about 52,313 (55,000 population increase – 22,358 natural increase + 19,671 emigration) of the resident population 55,000 increase, was due to foreigners becoming PRs ?

If this is the case, does it mean that about 95 per cent (52,313 divided by 55,000) of the resident population increase was due to foreigners becoming PRs ?

To What extent has the continuing decline in the procreation rate been due to the change in the income tax rebates on 1 January 2004, reducing the old $ 20,000 Special Tax Rebate for mothers below age 31 for the second child, to just $ 10,000 under the new Parenthood Tax Rebate ?

The ‘Future Resident Labour Force According to Medium Projection, 2005 – 2050’, is projected to increase from the current (2005) 1,747,806 to 1,764,527 in 2010, and then gradually decline to only 1,148,032 in 2050.

Part Two of this article will be published next week.

High Economic goal is what is aspired to be achieved.
Economic performance came from the people.

Example : a CEO wants his sales team to increase sales by 200% by next quarter. He painted his vision. Whether this can be achieved depends a lot on the sales team workforce who may have to commute to and fro paying all sorts of tarriffs without compraing , supporting the buses and mrt as much as they can. pay carpark without sengchao. pay tax diligently. never object. always yes.
the ceo achieved his sales target goal and felt proud proud.

Funny right. So many “good things” that you have mentioned and the list can go on and on and yet many still make noise leh. Just don’t understand why.

Is there something missing that you have forgotten to mention ?